Sponsor Advertisement
Comey Clarifies Controversial '86 47' Post Amidst Assassination Speculation

Comey Clarifies Controversial '86 47' Post Amidst Assassination Speculation

Former FBI Director James Comey attributes a contentious Instagram post to an innocent misunderstanding, while critics and Donald Trump allege sinister motives.

Former FBI Director James Comey recently found himself at the center of a heated controversy over an Instagram post that was interpreted by some as a cryptic endorsement of violence against former President Donald Trump. Comey, who was relieved of his duties by Trump in 2017, faced criticism and scrutiny after sharing a beach photo displaying shells arranged to represent the number “86”. It drew national attention, with interpretations suggesting a hidden message of violence due to the slang term '86' which can imply to 'get rid of' or in extreme interpretations, 'to kill'.

Amidst the uproar, Comey broke his silence in an interview with MSNBC's Nicole Wallace. He explained that the post's origin was not only benign but also familial. According to Comey, his wife, with a background in the restaurant industry, was the one who suggested the photo and explained that '86' was industry jargon for an item no longer available. Comey recounted, “We stood over it and I said, I think it’s some kind of political message and she said, ‘86 when I was a server… meant to remove an item from the menu when you ran out of ingredients.’”

However, the post's timing could not have been more sensitive, as it followed two assassination attempts against Trump in 2024, causing alarm among officials and supporters. High-profile individuals, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, condemned the post, with Gabbard calling for Comey's arrest and a Secret Service investigation.

In his defense, Comey stated he was unaware of the violent connotations attached to '86' and promptly removed the post to distance himself from any association with violence. The U.S. Secret Service conducted an interview with Comey, which he described as professional, reflecting on the numerous investigations he has faced since his departure from the Trump administration.

The term '86' is defined by Merriam-Webster as slang for 'to throw out' or 'to refuse service to', and notes a less common and unofficial interpretation as 'to kill'. Comey, reflecting on his relationship with Trump, said, “I’m in some strange way, the relationship he can’t get over,” acknowledging the ongoing tension between them.

Trump, in a Fox News interview, insisted Comey knew the implications of his actions, stating, “He knew exactly what that meant. A child knows what that meant. If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination.” He deferred questions about potential consequences for Comey to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

This incident has reignited discussions about the boundaries of political speech and the responsibilities of public figures in communicating on social media. While the intentions behind Comey's post remain debated, it underscores the volatile nature of political discourse in the digital age.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

While the '86 47' Instagram post by James Comey has been met with suspicion and outrage, it is essential to step back and assess the situation within the broader context of freedom of speech and the hyper-polarized political environment. The immediate leap to interpretations of violence reflects the heightened state of alert that arises from a tumultuous political climate, but it also points to the dangers of quick judgment and condemnation without substantial evidence.

Comey's explanation, framed by a benign domestic anecdote, speaks to the misunderstandings that can occur in the age of social media, where every post is scrutinized for deeper meaning. It is a reminder of the importance of intention versus perception, and the responsibility of individuals to communicate clearly to avoid such misinterpretations. The progressive viewpoint would encourage a measured response that seeks to understand the context rather than jumping to conclusions that could further inflame an already divided public.

Conservative View

The controversy surrounding James Comey's Instagram post raises serious concerns about the intentions of a former high-ranking law enforcement official. The number '86', especially in the context of past threats against President Trump, is not to be taken lightly. Comey's assertion that he was unaware of the violent connotation of the term does little to mitigate the potential harm such a message could have inspired. Given his professional background, it is reasonable to expect him to understand the gravity of public statements and the power of suggestion.

Supporters of Trump point to the former president's interpretation of the post as a clear indicator that Comey intended to incite violence. The swift reaction from figures like Gabbard and Noem is indicative of the zero-tolerance policy that must be upheld when it comes to any indication of political violence. The incident should be a catalyst for a broader conversation about the need for clarity and responsibility from public figures on social media, ensuring that they do not inadvertently or otherwise provoke harmful actions.

Common Ground

In the case of James Comey's contentious Instagram post, both conservative and progressive viewpoints can agree on the importance of careful communication by public figures. There is a shared understanding that in the digital era, words and images can be powerful and, at times, dangerous tools. A bipartisan consensus might emerge around the need for transparency and accountability when it comes to the messages conveyed by those in the public eye, to ensure that public discourse remains productive and does not incite violence.

Both sides may also agree that the integrity and security of political figures are paramount and that all threats, or perceived threats, must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. This commitment to safety transcends political lines and reinforces the collective value placed on democratic principles and the peaceful expression of differing views.